They have a very strong and compelling bid. They have more development programmes around the world than any other nation, helping to spread the gospel of football and giving opportunities and training to young people who might otherwise not get the chance. They offer FIFA the probability of the most commercially successful bid. They have fantastic stadiums and infrastructure. They have a huge and passionate fan base. It is the safest possible bid.

Yet they never seem to secure many votes. The strength of England's bid doesn't seem to count very much among FIFA delegates. Perhaps the strength of England's bid is also its weakness? FIFA likes to think that it is taking football to new markets and helping to make a better world as a result. That's fine and Russia is a worthy winner. But should that always be FIFA's ideal?

What of the next World Cup in Europe? If England bids, it will still have the same strengths. Will FIFA say again that they have to take the World Cup to countries where football isn't so well developed? Because, if so, England will never again host the World Cup. Or, at least, not for a thousand years.

That's an insult to Fifa's integrity as much as much as anything, really can't fault Englands bid team here, they did all they could but Fifa simply weren't interested from the start. It's disgraceful how a nation who has done so much for this sport can be snubbed by the clowns at Fifa.

Though I have no problem with Russia 2018, it hurts all losers.
Got to wonder what FIFA's aversion to England is, they fricken made the Game.

Perhaps the strength of England's bid is also its weakness? FIFA likes to think that it is taking football to new markets and helping to make a better world as a result. That's fine and Russia is a worthy winner. But should that always be FIFA's ideal?

So what can England do?

In that case it should hav ecome to Australia.
But no, it's about lining your pockets with dirty money.

England can either shake its head and just go for Euro Championships or it can give FIFA a big **** You! and leave, hopefuly with Holland, Belgium, Australia, USA, Japan, Korea and the whole of Oceania on side to for an alturistic alternative.

Become rich, in a isolated deserted place with around 1.6 million people in a place where people outside of it don't want to play football or even watch it, whereby alcohol isn't aloud, women have to cover up, people die from humidity. Oh and build 12 new stadiums which will never be used again after world cup.

They have a very strong and compelling bid. They have more development programmes around the world than any other nation, helping to spread the gospel of football and giving opportunities and training to young people who might otherwise not get the chance. They offer FIFA the probability of the most commercially successful bid. They have fantastic stadiums and infrastructure. They have a huge and passionate fan base. It is the safest possible bid.

Yet they never seem to secure many votes. The strength of England's bid doesn't seem to count very much among FIFA delegates. Perhaps the strength of England's bid is also its weakness? FIFA likes to think that it is taking football to new markets and helping to make a better world as a result. That's fine and Russia is a worthy winner. But should that always be FIFA's ideal?

What of the next World Cup in Europe? If England bids, it will still have the same strengths. Will FIFA say again that they have to take the World Cup to countries where football isn't so well developed? Because, if so, England will never again host the World Cup. Or, at least, not for a thousand years.

So what can England do?

Cut all monetary ties with FIFA until the likes of Jack Warner are gone and ensure our media are all over them for the next few years.

I was completely embarrassed by the treatment of known criminals within FIFA's ExCo by our PM and our bid team, and saddened by their criticism of our media in uncovering them. At least we'll see no more of that.

England's bid was as good as it could have been, but I don't want our country to have any more to do with FIFA than is necessary until our government is confident they're on the level.

Internal questioning is fair enough in some situations, but the external factors were so out of kilter with any culture of modern transparency that there's no point asking what more we could have done to win in this instance. Internal questioning now would be a bit like worrying about the shampoo you'd used before your trip to the guillotine.

They have a very strong and compelling bid. They have more development programmes around the world than any other nation, helping to spread the gospel of football and giving opportunities and training to young people who might otherwise not get the chance. They offer FIFA the probability of the most commercially successful bid. They have fantastic stadiums and infrastructure. They have a huge and passionate fan base. It is the safest possible bid.

Yet they never seem to secure many votes. The strength of England's bid doesn't seem to count very much among FIFA delegates. Perhaps the strength of England's bid is also its weakness? FIFA likes to think that it is taking football to new markets and helping to make a better world as a result. That's fine and Russia is a worthy winner. But should that always be FIFA's ideal?

What of the next World Cup in Europe? If England bids, it will still have the same strengths. Will FIFA say again that they have to take the World Cup to countries where football isn't so well developed? Because, if so, England will never again host the World Cup. Or, at least, not for a thousand years.

So what can England do?

Not much we can do until those clowns at Fifa are gone. Generations of people in England will never get to see a world cup on home soil now, for what? Loving the game too much? Fifa needs to get it's priorities right, I'm all for developing the game in area's where it has yet to take off, but don't punish those that already have an existing passion and fanbase amongst it's country.